“According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the risk of developing melanoma due to tanning bed use increases by 75 percent for people under age 35, and the British Medical Journal agrees the earlier people start tanning, the greater the risk they will develop skin cancer,” Radogno said. “There are plenty of safe tanning alternatives available, and there is absolutely no need for young people to take this unnecessary health risk.”

Senate Bill 2244 would prohibit minors age 17 and younger from tanning in sunless tanning beds. Currently minors 14 to 17 are allowed to tan if they can provide a parental signature. However, this would be restricted if Radogno’s legislation is signed into law.

“Just as we don’t give children the option to smoke, they shouldn’t be allowed to tan indoors—which medical studies show is a dangerous, and even deadly, practice,” said Radogno, who noted that in 2009 experts at the International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, the cancer arm of the World Health Organization, moved tanning beds and other sources of ultraviolet radiation into the top cancer risk category—the same classification given to arsenic and mustard gas. “The light from indoor tanning beds is considered a Class 1 carcinogen, and many respected medical experts agree sunless tanning does increase the risk of cancer.”

A proposal to ban the use of hand-held cellphones while driving a car was endorsed in a House committee Wednesday.

“A hand-held cellphone is a huge distraction while driving a car,” said state Rep. John D’Amico, D-Chicago, who sponsored the legislation.

Drivers using a hand-held cellphone are eight times more likely to be in an accident, he said, and California experienced a “dramatic” drop in accidents when that state adopted a similar ban.

Illinois already bans texting while driving, and 76 communities across the state have some restrictions on use of hand-held cellphones while driving, which was one reason a Verizon representative testified in favor of the measure. In the current situation, Illinois cellphone customers do not know where they might get ticketed, the Verizon representative said.

In 2007, the United States suffered some 15,000-19,000 accidental shootings. More than 600 of these shootings proved fatal. Is that “very rare”?

The total number of Americans killed and wounded by gun accidents exceeds the total number killed or injured in fires.

The number killed in gun accidents is 20% higher than the total number killed in all U.S. civil aviation accidents.

In 2011, the Consumer Product Safety Commission voted to ban drop-side baby cribs because these cribs have been blamed for “dozens” of infant deaths over the entire previous decade. The 600+ accidental gun deaths in any single year amount to 50 dozen.

Back when the Centers for Disease Control were allowed to do gun research, they found that American children under age 15 were nine times more likely to die of a gun accident than children in other advanced wealthy countries.

The Centers for Disease Control reserve the term “very rare” for accidental deaths from vaccines, the number of which is zero, or close to it. If more than 600 people a year were dying from vaccines, we’d have a national uproar, if not a revolution.

Who here really thinks you can legislatively fix stupid? What law will keep a moron from yacking away on his phone while not paying attention to his driving? if he isn’t bright enough to hang up and drive do you think he will care about the law? Tanning beds really we owe how much for pensions and tanning beds is the concern? No law will keep some moron from not checking his weapon before cleaning it. The answer to be honest is training and Common Frickin sense.

As for federal funding on gun safety research. you can thank bill Clinton for the Ban. As i remember Clinton used CDC to produce questionable studies to support his gun control legislation. The backlash created the ban. I don’t think anyone here wants the CDC to become a source of POLITICAL studies. How about a mental consequences of abortion study designed by Karl Rove? Or how about the social and health costs of allowing unrestricted political speech designed by the Republican or Democrat party?

The discussion yesterday that this post can be related to involves whether or not to BAN concealed firearms from public transportation - since there were references to the possibility of accidents on crowded subways. I think that is where anon got the idea, Skeeter.

Skeeter - if you ban firearms on the subway, aren’t the weapons….banned? The issue yesterday was whether or not the guns should be allowed on public transportation. One arguement was re the liklihood of accidents. Research was posted and debated. I would suggest that debate continues with this thread. I get the connection.

DuPage,
The problem discussing guns is that people attack some odd view of somebody might argue, or that some nameless person once argued.
Unless people are going to respond to what is written, it becomes a huge waste of time and frankly casts doubt on the claims by the NRA that the membership is calm and rational.

Going off on tangents against people and ideas that don’t exist is neither calm nor rational.

wordslinger- The present law only allows minors to use tanning beds with parental approval. Personally, I think that if any parent allows their child to expose themselves to possible cancer causing UV rays they are crazy. But a government outright ban is nanny state thinking.

As a retired IDOT maintainer I am for banning non-hands free cellphone usage. Way too many close calls while working on the highways will yackers. Having so many town/village ordinances is confusing.

My point (and the reason for my snark warning) was this congress’ never ending efforts to legislate away people’s stupidity, all the while avoiding the real issues (passing a true budget, school funding, fixing what years of underfunding the pension system has cause, to name three).

The CDC conducts research and creates reports that are (or should be) used to inform the public and lawmakers. Those studies are sometimes characterized as “questionable” when the results do not match up with what people “know” to be true based on their personal beliefs and experience. However, the point of scientific research is to test hypotheses (including what we “know” to be true).

But, stats are just the starting point for research, and identifying a leading cause of death does not necessarily indicate what can be done to address that cause. It does, however, provide perspective. Given limited resources, where should we direct our attention when trying to save lives…

1. 14-17 year olds currently can use a tanning bed with parental approval; so Radogno wants the state to take that away from parents. Gonna make the spray-tan people happy come prom time.
2. I can confirm 25% of the Chicago-area expressway drivers are on their cells at a given time. So the hands-free people will be getting a windfall.
Good thing the GA wants to be our parents, while failing to address budgetary matters.

DuPage,
The problem discussing guns is that people attack some odd view of somebody might argue, or that some nameless person once argued.
Unless people are going to respond to what is written, it becomes a huge waste of time and frankly casts doubt on the claims by the NRA that the membership is calm and rational.

Going off on tangents against people and ideas that don’t exist is neither calm nor rational ===

I can’t follow what you just said - confusing.

Is this the point in the discussion where you say I shouldn’t have any guns?

The Studies conducted in the 90’s were used as supposedly irrefutable evidence to show that somehow the AWB would cut crime by double digits. Which now, after the fact, we know (not suppose know) that the AWB didn’t reduce crime in any appreciable way. No the folks at the CDC are not hacks but you can not argue that the way you instruct them to conduct a study has no bearing on the outcome. Garbage in garbage out. As usual it is the politicians that were misusing the public trust. My point is if the CDC is to remain a trusted source for public health we need to avoid any and all political entanglements. To do it’s job any of us left, right, and center need to be able to trust what the CDC is saying without questioning bias.

As for a public health risk please explain what the public health risk is when a firearm is used by a law abiding citizen? Note a negligent discharge is an unlawful discharge which takes care of the accidents. The firearm itself is totally safe it is the misuse of the firearm that makes it unsafe. Just like your car.

Okay, so now I am being found guilty by association? What reality do you exist in? Your post is not clear. “The problem discussing guns is that people attack some odd view of somebody might argue, or that some nameless person once argued”. It is not clear english.

Please name the person I “supported”. Please connect me to them by my words. Otherwise, you are being disingenuous.

===My point is if the CDC is to remain a trusted source for public health we need to avoid any and all political entanglements. To do it’s job any of us left, right, and center need to be able to trust what the CDC is saying without questioning bias.===

I’m not sure what you’re saying here. Do you think it’s time to lift the ban on federally funded gun safety research or not? If not, why not?

Every man is presumed to know the law - and bring your wadders because there is more and more law out there for every man to know. I am sure legislators mean well, but….

It strikes me that when I was a kid, nearly 40 some years ago, the Illinois Revised Statutes was a three volume set - probably taking up about a total of 12 inches of library space. Last time I bought the Illinois Compiled Statutes in 1998, there were 9 volumes and taking up over 24 inches of bookshelf Fortunately, everything is on the Internet now.

We are looking for leaders to put the State of Illinois on firm economic footing, first and foremost. Respectfully, more safety measures (gee, there ought to be a law) is fiddling around.

47th
I disagree with lifting the ban in fact i would like to see more bans. Here is why the purpose of the CDC is Disease control. it is essential when the CDC issues a statement concerning disease control that there is no question as to it’s integrity. Politicians involving government agencies etc. in political debates outside their baliwick only results in a heightened distrust of those agencies.

As to the funding of gun research i disagree with federal funding of studies for anything other than Disease control, Weapon development, and federal crimes. For everything else the private sector does it better.

I would still like to see the public health risk from the lawful use of a weapon? Bear in mind last i checked a negligent discharge was considered unlawful discharge.

–As to the funding of gun research i disagree with federal funding of studies for anything other than Disease control, Weapon development, and federal crimes. For everything else the private sector does it better.–

That’s a little narrow, don’t you think?

The kids down in Champaign did a pretty good job with federal funding for the Mosaic Project that resulted in the Internet.

The folks at Argonne and Fermilab do some good stuff, too. The list goes on and on…

The cell phone user and abusers are scary, but the texters are even more frightening. On the tollway, I had to change lanes because of a car driving slower than the speed limit. When passing, I saw the woman was texting while driving the car. These people are so self absorbed that they can tie up traffic and cause accidents and fatalities.

In a just world, in addition to tickets, these motorists should have their cellular telephone or texting privileges ought to be suspended for thirty days to teach them lessons. If you need to call or text, pull over and park.

I gave you an honest answer where is mine? I didn’t ask for a study i asked to see how you came to the clear health risk statement you made at 12:15.

Believe me Handgun Control inc. has done many studies as has several other antigun groups. my point is a firearm is a tool just like a hammer or a car. when that tool is used as designed and in accordance with the law it creates no health risk. My firearm punches holes in paper and game where is the risk? Even if it were to defend myself with it it is still not a risk.

===when that tool is used as designed and in accordance with the law it creates no health risk.===

You mean other than to the person you’ve shot in self defense?

The key to your logic here is the idea that “accidents” count as unlawful use of a firearm, thus violating your “in accordance with the law” clause. That makes your claim valid, since any accidents are negligent, and therefore illegal, so you believe those incidents shouldn’t be counted in any risk assessment. That’s pretty narrow, don’t you think?

You appear to have great faith in your ability to never make a mistake with your firearms. Forgive me if I don’t extend that same assumption to all firearms owners who may soon be carrying their loaded guns down my block.

the efforts that continue to prohibit studies of gun violence by the CDC are positively infuriating. that’s the kind of thing that the NRA does routinely and which, happily, is becoming more known and not the inside baseball it has been for years. time to put a stop to those restrictions.

2. The #1 cause of distracted driving accidents, i believe, is still coffee.

3. Point taken.

@Anon - No one is suggesting banning swimming pools or guns. However, many localities have imposed some common sense regulations - some would call them proprty rights infringements - on pool owners, like requiring fences around pools. And, some have had the audacity to suggest trigger locks and other gun safety regulations.

BTW, I think you’re quite incorrect about swimming pools killing more kids than guns. But, we require kids to get immunizations, a certain violation of privacy if there is one, even though there hasnt been a single case of diptheria in the US in almost a decade.

YDD, good to hear from you. As always, you’re right on point and I pretty much agree with you. For all the problems cell phones are causing in cars, I too believe that the preexisting distractions like eating, drinking, gawking, makeup applying and such are equal contributors to driving trouble.